occams razor only tells us here that you are a racist shiathead to refer to the black person as a 'gangster in training' and the non-black vigilante as the 'neighborhood watch guy' (an organization which he has clearly been shown -not- to have been affiliated with)

So a guy living and embracing the gansta life style is not a gangster in training? The guy volunteering his time to keep his neighborhood safe is deemed a bad guy and probable assaulter, while the "troubled teen" heading down the wrong path is the good guy and probable victim here. That's a completely bizarre and illogical conclusion. Occam's razor tells me the troubled teen turned violent. End of story.

The troubled teed ran away, his murderer admitted to the 911 operator that he ran away and he had no idea where he'd gone, He obviously tracked him down, when he had no authority to and was specifically told that he shouldn't. Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force. Trayvon was stalked, tried to get away, was stalked some more and stood his ground. Martin murdered someone he was stalking, open and shut.

In addition to the numerous assumptions made inferences not well supported by available evidence, I don't think you are conveying what you think you are conveying.

Yes, a broken nose and bleeding wounds to the back of the head are "superficial". Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

You mean a broken nose and bleeding wounds that required exactly no medical attention? I was all cut up and bloody but I totally refused medical treatment because I'm that much of a bad ass. Zimmerman refusing medical attention either shows that he wasn't badly hurt or proves that he's one of the dumbest human being on the planet. I just shot and killed someone in "self defense" but hey he didn't even hurt me bad enough that I want a doctor to check me out.

Yes, a broken nose and bleeding wounds to the back of the head are "superficial". Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

You mean a broken nose and bleeding wounds that required exactly no medical attention? I was all cut up and bloody but I totally refused medical treatment because I'm that much of a bad ass. Zimmerman refusing medical attention either shows that he wasn't badly hurt or proves that he's one of the dumbest human being on the planet. I just shot and killed someone in "self defense" but hey he didn't even hurt me bad enough that I want a doctor to check me out.

Other than the EMTs that stitched him up and his doctor visit the next day? Maybe he didn't want to pay $600+ for an ambulance ride...

squirrelflavoredyogurt:Florida has a stand your ground law that says if you've tried everything within your power to get away from someone and they follow you, you are allowed to defend yourself with everything up to and including deadly force.

Florida's law says no such thing, and "following" doesn't even begin to approach the threshold actually defined in the law. I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly. I mean, when I set out to kill someone in cold blood, I always want to make sure there's a recording being made of it, and that the police will be along in a moment.

Popcorn Johnny:gimmegimme: Friend, a random citizen took it upon himself to follow a kid around in armed pursuit in a vehicle and then on foot. The target didn't know if he was going to be raped or kidnapped or stabbed or shot in the chest from a few inches away.

A concerned citizen, who happened to be armed, reported a suspicious person to the police and then attempted to regain sight of that person after they fled. The suspicious person then launched a violent assault on the citizen, leading the concerned citizen to pull their legally carried firearm and defend them self from great bodily harm or possibly death.

Oh yeah, he was 'concerned' all right. Enough to force a confrontation after being advised not to.

when someone points a GUN at you. standard protocol is to put your hands in the farking air and wave em like you don't care. not to be a punk kid and be like "the guns just a prop yo i can kick this guys ass". seriously if that was the case why would we even have GUNS?

Nutsac_Jim:Shaddup: Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.

THANK YOU.

For what? The above scenerio does not apply. Zimmerman didnt assault Martin, get his ass kicked, and then and then shoot Martin..

I mean, unless one asserts that following Martin IS assault. Now, I will admit that i have seen that here as a justification to assault Zimmerman.

The "initial aggressor" situation I used was in response to somebody's idiot suggestion above, that they could start a fight, let themselves get beat up for a while, and then shoot the other person on the grounds that that person had "escalated" the fight. In that situation, the burden would be on the "initial aggressor" to indicate he had clearly disengaged after starting the altercation.

In Zimmerman's case, things are much more murky, but then he (Zimmerman) isn't using an initial aggressor defense (as far as I know). He's using a straight not-guilty to 2d degree murder with a pure self-defense (none of the stand-your-ground b/s). Much lower bars in both cases. The burden here is on the prosecutor first of all to prove Zimmerman guilty of 2d degree murder; and if that can even be done, Zimmerman has the affirmative burden of proving he was in fear of his life. Much lower burden on him than that he had no duty to retreat.

I almost feel bad that I no longer care if he is guilty or not, I have moved my anticipation to the reaction of the verdict.

Guilty -

All kinds of esteemed leaders of the "Black Community" stand up, give speaches do the talk show circuit applauding unity and justice. A victory for minorities.

Conservatives lament the fall of freedom and the inability to bust a cap in a bruthas ars.

Not Guilty -

All kinds of esteemed leaders of the "Black Community" stand up, give speaches do the talk show circuit condeming the lack of unity and justice. A defeat for minorities.

Conservatives rejoice in the value of a just system.

Possible Riots...Sure its a bad thing, but makes for good TV.

The down side to all of it is that Nancy Grace will walk away unscathed. The nasty wench should be the one on trial. Reguardless of your thoughts on this case her kind of media whoring has tainted this case. She should burn in hell for praying on others misfortune...WHORE...Slut...Ok Im better.I know shes not the only one...just the one that gets my ire.

As an Aussie I really have no interest in this case. But I lived in Savannah, GA for a short while during the Reagan years and saw the white jocks at my military school taunt the black kids by saying "Your grand daddy was my grand daddies slave, boy".

I don't see that as the typical American viewpoint.

I do, however, find it quite interesting that Popcorn Johnny(who I have previously tagged as "Utter Scum" for some reason) has been continuously posting on this thread for fourteen farking hours.

Get a farking life, son.

Seriously, grow the fark up. Try to be something other than a piss poor excuse for a human being, there's a good lad.

cgremlin:I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly

1) He hung up before the actual confrontation began.2) The police were not 'arriving shortly'. In fact, he refused to tell them where he'd be. He asked them to call him when they were close, thus giving him warning they were coming.

fredklein:cgremlin: I still haven't figured out why all of the folks that believe Zimmerman deliberately stalked and murdered the kid think that anyone would do such a thing while on the phone with a 911 dispatcher, knowing full well the call was being recorded and also knowing full well that the police would be arriving very shortly

1) He hung up before the actual confrontation began.2) The police were not 'arriving shortly'. In fact, he refused to tell them where he'd be. He asked them to call him when they were close, thus giving him warning they were coming.

Are you still in here being stupid?The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.Seriously buddy, learn to facts of the case before you open your mouth.

Gyrfalcon:Nutsac_Jim: Shaddup: Gyrfalcon: Wow, nothing seems to mess people up as much as "stand your ground" as "first aggressor." It's not even that hard. There's one other element people are leaving out. If you are the first aggressor and you disengage but your (by now pissed off) opponent keeps escalating, you can use deadly force if necessary....BUT you, as the primary aggressor have to have made it clear by your actions that you have disengaged or otherwise attempted to terminate the altercation and the other person continued to escalate despite your best efforts to do so.

So if you start a fight and the other person begins to beat the crap out of you, that's not sufficient for you to pull out your gun and kill him. In fact, it's not even enough for you to let them win for a while and then kill them. If you were the one who actually started the fight, then you have to make it clear by your actions you WANT TO STOP. Unlike self-defense, where there may or may not be a duty to reasonably retreat to a place of safety; if you are the "first aggressor" before you get to resort to lethal force, you HAVE to retreat.

My Crim Pro professor explained it thusly: It's almost as if you have to completely disengage, go inside, and force the other person to start another complete assault against you before you get to use lethal force. If you start something, the burden is on you to stop it. Which is why Zimmerman is facing a murder charge.

THANK YOU.

For what? The above scenerio does not apply. Zimmerman didnt assault Martin, get his ass kicked, and then and then shoot Martin..

I mean, unless one asserts that following Martin IS assault. Now, I will admit that i have seen that here as a justification to assault Zimmerman.

The "initial aggressor" situation I used was in response to somebody's idiot suggestion above, that they could start a fight, let themselves get beat up for a while, and then shoot the other person on the grounds that that person had "escalated" the fight. ...

There is no affirmative burden on a criminal defendant in Florida (or any other state except for Ohio). There is also no such thing as an initial aggressor defense. All the defendant has to do is show some palpable evidence of self defense. From there the State has to disprove it. They can try to use the initial aggressor statute (which negates a justification defense) but they would have to overcome the exceptions to the exception by showing that the defendant either didn't disengage or wasn't subject to deadly force and couldn't escape.

ChaosStar:The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.

A lot can (and did) happen in a minute and a half.

He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.

He could have told the police he'd meet then at a known landmark, and returned there. He didn't. He asked for them to call when they arrived in the area. Why? because he was still planning on following Trayvon, and. not knowing where Trayvon was heading, didn't know where he'd be.

This judge would have been the laughingstock of every lawyer and fellow judge in the district if she allowed those two quack-jobs in as expert witnesses with their junk science and "Russian owners manual".

This case needs to be dismissed. They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice). This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman

fredklein:ChaosStar: The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call.

A lot can (and did) happen in a minute and a half.

He didn't refuse to tell them jack shiat, he wasn't near any appreciable land marks and didn't know the name of the closest cross street so he wanted the officers to call as he didn't know where Martin was and didn't want to say his address out loud.

He could have told the police he'd meet then at a known landmark, and returned there. He didn't. He asked for them to call when they arrived in the area. Why? because he was still planning on following Trayvon, and. not knowing where Trayvon was heading, didn't know where he'd be.

Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was. What logical sense does it make, if he wanted to find Martin, to keep where he was going a secret from Martin?

Here's a map:

Look at the logical path that was followed, directions per map orientation. East off the road onto the path, turning South following path. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin.Now if Martin didn't want to start an altercation, he continues South to home (4). Instead he ends up still East of Zimmerman's vehicle where the altercation happens (3).

Perhaps they stayed on the road, following it around the curve, where Martin ducks East between the two housing buildings. Zimmerman loses sight, following him East between the two buildings but not knowing where Martin is and being advised he doesn't need to follow Martin he goes North up the path to where the altercation occurs (3) to follow the path back to the road and his truck.

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

If (3) and (4) were closer together, I would say the arguments that Zimmerman continued to chase Martin might have some validity, but the evidence just isn't there.

FloridaFarkTag:This case needs to be dismissed. They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice). This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman

Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Kyosuke:FloridaFarkTag: This case needs to be dismissed. They will never get a jury that will convict Zimmerman...and if they did....the appealate court would overturn the decision (they have already ruled against the prosecution twice). This is nothing more than a Black Racist Lynching what is happening to Zimmerman

Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

ChaosStar:Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was

So, he was afraid to say "Yes, officer, I've given up chasing the guy, and I'll meet you at ____", because... why? How would that info (that Zimmerman was meeting the cops) benefit Trayvon in any way? Hell, knowing the cops were coming would probably make Trayvon run away faster. (Assuming he originally had ill intent, of course.)

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

I've said it before. I believe that Trayvon, fearing to lead the crazy guy following him straight to his house, hid. Right about at '3'. Zimmerman says he followed around the corner, then lost sight of Trayvon (umm... because Trayvon was hiding!) Zimmerman continued slightly past the '3' mark. That is when Zimmerman supposedly agreed to discontinue pursuit, and turned around to return to his vehicle. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and heading back toward him, assumed the crazy guy following him has discovered his hiding place, and is coming for him. Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman. This fits all the facts.

fredklein:ChaosStar: Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was

So, he was afraid to say "Yes, officer, I've given up chasing the guy, and I'll meet you at ____", because... why? How would that info (that Zimmerman was meeting the cops) benefit Trayvon in any way? Hell, knowing the cops were coming would probably make Trayvon run away faster. (Assuming he originally had ill intent, of course.)

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

I've said it before. I believe that Trayvon, fearing to lead the crazy guy following him straight to his house, hid. Right about at '3'. Zimmerman says he followed around the corner, then lost sight of Trayvon (umm... because Trayvon was hiding!) Zimmerman continued slightly past the '3' mark. That is when Zimmerman supposedly agreed to discontinue pursuit, and turned around to return to his vehicle. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and heading back toward him, assumed the crazy guy following him has discovered his hiding place, and is coming for him. Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman. This fits all the facts.

Yes? He made that quite clear when he said:Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950, Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.So yes, he was afraid to give out his information, because Martin could have followed him home to do anything. Giving out where he was going to be to meet the police meant Martin could have been waiting for him when he got there, or could have followed him there. Average police response time is high, he had no idea when a officer was going to show up.

fredklein: ChaosStar: Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Except that's not what happened, of course.0/10

"Followed"no quotes, he didn't allegedly follow himwhile armedwhile legally conceal carrying (and after showing ill intentexpressing frustration at police response timestoward "these assholes" who "always get away") and then, after a confrontation, killed Trayvonin self defense after Martin attacked him, bashed his head into the concrete, and went for his gun.

ChaosStar:fredklein: ChaosStar: Except that he didn't want to say out loud where he was going because he didn't know where Martin was

So, he was afraid to say "Yes, officer, I've given up chasing the guy, and I'll meet you at ____", because... why? How would that info (that Zimmerman was meeting the cops) benefit Trayvon in any way? Hell, knowing the cops were coming would probably make Trayvon run away faster. (Assuming he originally had ill intent, of course.)

No matter which way you look at it, Martin's destination (4) was in the complete opposite direction of where Zimmerman needed to go (1)(2) so unless you want to break the laws of space and time there's really no way Zimmerman could have just happened upon Martin and no way Martin couldn't have gotten away had he chosen to do so which lends a lot of support to Zimmerman's claim that Martin approached him.

I've said it before. I believe that Trayvon, fearing to lead the crazy guy following him straight to his house, hid. Right about at '3'. Zimmerman says he followed around the corner, then lost sight of Trayvon (umm... because Trayvon was hiding!) Zimmerman continued slightly past the '3' mark. That is when Zimmerman supposedly agreed to discontinue pursuit, and turned around to return to his vehicle. Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman turn around and heading back toward him, assumed the crazy guy following him has discovered his hiding place, and is coming for him. Thus, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman. This fits all the facts.

Yes? He made that quite clear when he said:Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950, Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.So yes, he was afraid to give out his information, because Martin could have followed him home to do anything. Giving out where he was going to be to meet the police meant Martin could have been waiting for him when he got there, or could have followed him there. Average police response time is high, he had no ...

holy shiat if you zoom in you can actually see the bag of skittles he was eating.hint: it was watermelon

Molavian:Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

That's what's nuts. Martin did have the right to stand his ground, he didn't have the right to beat Zimmerman into the ground.

Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

Because for some people, this is all about guns. They want/need society to adjudge people guilty of something because they carried a gun. They want to impose a level of strict liability on anybody who uses a gun on someone who is unarmed.

Cataholic:Molavian: Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

That's what's nuts. Martin did have the right to stand his ground, he didn't have the right to beat Zimmerman into the ground.

Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

Because for some people, this is all about guns. They want/need society to adjudge people guilty of something because they carried a gun. They want to impose a level of strict liability on anybody who uses a gun on someone who is unarmed.

Don't forget about the blatant racism. Everyone's out to get the black man.

ChaosStar:He made that quite clear when he said:Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950, Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.So yes, he was afraid to give out his information, because Martin could have followed him home to do anything.

So, you think Trayvon, who's been running away this whole time, actually wanted to follow the crazy guy with the gun back to his house??

That makes absolutely no sense.

Besides, that's Zimmerman's reasoning for not saying his address out loud. Which has absolutely nothing to do with not setting a meeting place (far from his house, if he wishes).

Giving out where he was going to be to meet the police meant Martin could have been waiting for him when he got there, or could have followed him there.

Again, makes no sense. Why would Trayvon, who is actively seeking to AVOID Zimmerman, suddenly decide to turn around and FOLLOW him?? Especially follow him to a meeting with the cops??

Average police response time is high, he had no idea when a officer was going to show up.

No it's not, you yourself said "The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call."

Kiddo look at the map, seriously, look at it. Zoom in if you can.Here, look at the Google map.https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=203577346 16 7583507267.0004bbdcc7c71244ae865Where is Martin hiding? It's a farking open area of lawns. Even the trees aren't big enough to hide an Ethiopian behind.

Try looking at a different angle.

There are plenty of places to hide. There are fences and bushes and pillars (oh, my!).